Sunday, July 1, 2018

Suspect in Boise Stabbing Spree Doesn't Quite Match Media's Narrative

A horrific stabbing spree at a Boise, Idaho, apartment complex last night left nine people injured, including six children. Local media reports state that four of the victims have life-threatening injuries.
The national media quickly seized on the fact that the apartment complex was known to house refugees and that some of the victims themselves were apparently refugees.
Despite the fact that the 30-year-old male suspect was arrested last night at 8:50 p.m. and his arrest record and mugshot were posted on the Ada County Sheriff's website at 3:46 this morning, none of the articles identified the suspect.
CNN left the suspect's identity out, too, while pushing the refugee status of the victims:
That the victims were refugees — with no mention of the suspect's identity — was quickly highlighted by establishment media types:
The seeming direction that the media narrative took was that this was a hate crime by someone from out of state, directed at Boise's refugee community and fueled by anti-immigration rhetoric.
Alas, that doesn't seem to be the case with arrested suspect Timmy Earl Kinner:
A quick internet search shows a series of arrests and charges for Kinner in a number of states, including apparently being shot by a homeowner during a burglary, but nothing to indicate any anti-immigrant animus or bias, just a career criminal.
That notwithstanding, the message that the horrific stabbings last night were fueled by anti-refugee sentiments and by President Trump quickly took hold on social media, including from D.C.-area PR specialist Brian Lustig in a now-deleted tweet:
Self-styled Russia expert and registered foreign agent Molly McKew knew exactly whom to blame — RUSSIA!!!
The story also allowed for airing other racial grievances:
Given the media's less-than-stellar response to Thursday's horrific mass shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper on and all kinds of hints that President Trump's criticism of the media was to blame (turns out the killer had a long-standing grudge against the newspaper), you might think that the establishment media would be inclined to tone down the rhetoric against Trump and his supporters and wait until all the facts come out.
That doesn't seem to be the case. In last night's stabbing spree, there is no indication that the refugee status of some of the victims played any role at all. But that was exactly the element to the story that the media led with earlier today.
Media claims that overheated rhetoric is having a corrosive effect on our political and social discourse may be true, but the media seems to be reluctant to admit, let alone correct, their own fearmongering and how it is contributing to the problem. This is especially true as the facts in many of these cases don't match the initial media narrative.
One might argue that the low public opinion of the media is more due in part to these missteps and the media's own behavior than anything the president says or tweets.

WAR OF THE WORLDS (REVISED EDITION)


We haven’t heard much about the Democrats’ proposed legislative solution to resolve the hysteria over separations of families and fake families illegally entering the Unites at the border. The Democrats have whipped up the hysteria with the invaluable assistance of their media adjunct.
We look back with an attitude of bemusement on the panic whipped up by the Orson Welles/Mercury Theater broadcast dramatizing the invasion of earth by Martians in 1938. Now the Democrats foment hysteria to prevent our resistance to something like an actual invasion of foreigners across our southern border. They seek to aid and abet it.
At the Federalist, Gabriel Malor takes a look at the Democrats’ proposed legislative solution. Every Senate Democrat signed off on it. Malor finds that the bill “would actually prevent federal law enforcement agencies almost anywhere inside the United States from arresting and detaining criminals who are parents having nothing to do with unlawfully crossing the border and seeking asylum.”
Rep. Kevin Cramer looks forward to taking up the issue with Senator Heidi Heitkamp in his campaign against her reelection. Senator Tom Cotton is on board to lend a hand.



THE HYSTERIA THIS TIME

THE HYSTERIA THIS TIME

I don’t think the role of the mainstream media as an adjunct of the Democratic Party has ever been more obvious than it has been this month with the nonstop hysteria over enforcement of immigration law at the border. Are we permitted to have a country anymore? Apparently not.
When it comes to this month’s model of Trump hysteria, Victor Davis Hanson sees a pattern: “A month from now there will be a new manufactured news story that Donald Trump is savage, represents an existential danger, or is unhinged. We will hear of another Trump official cornered and driven out from a liberal-owned Beltway or New York City restaurant. An unhinged Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) will rant some more about impeachment.” He predicts: “And then the current hysteria over the border detainments will be filed, and go the way of the s—hole countries’ frenzy or Melania’s jacket melodrama.”
I can only wonder what the attitudes of average Americans are to the continuing invasion and related gaming of our immigration law. The Democrats support it. President Trump opposes it. Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on?
We are not to notice the obvious effects of our continuing difficulty enforcing the law and protecting our border. Heather Mac Donald gets at this home truth in “Who’s really to blame at the border?” Here is the conclusion of Heather’s column:
Underlying this episode were several cardinal principles of left-wing activism: that favored victim groups must never be held responsible for their actions, and that policy should be made based on immediate claims of need, with no regard to long-term consequences. The reigning assumption during the family-separation meltdown was that the adults who brought children with them across the border had no responsibility for their subsequent plight. The only actor with agency was the federal government; it alone bore the blame for alien minors being placed in detention facilities. Yet the but-for cause of the child separation was the adult’s decision to cross illegally into the U.S., child in tow. If you don’t want to be separated from your or another person’s child, don’t cross the border illegally. Likewise, any whisper of immigration enforcement inside the border is inevitably greeted with cries that such enforcement would cause illegal aliens to be “fearful.” If you don’t want to fear deportation, don’t assume the risk of deportation, however slight that risk may be, by illegal entry.
Obeying the law, however, is something that must never be demanded of politically correct victims. If lawbreaking carries negative consequences, the fault lies with the legal system, not with an individual’s decision to break the law in the first place.
This principle is at work in the ongoing attacks on the criminal-justice system as well: the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is attributed to allegedly racist actors and institutions, not to lawbreaking by the criminals. Non-legal forms of distress are also covered by the no-agency rule. If single mothers experience elevated rates of poverty, the fault lies with a heartless welfare system, not with their decision to conceive a child out-of-wedlock. The father, of course, is as good as nonexistent, in the eyes of the single-mother welfare lobby. If teen mothers are stressed out, the problem lies in the absence of daycare centers in high schools.
The “progressive” solution to these dilemmas is to confer an immediate benefit on the alleged victim that will alleviate the problem in the short term, perverse incentives be damned. Illegal aliens with children must be exempt from immigration rules. The likelihood that such a policy will encourage more illegal aliens to come is out of sight, out of mind (if not covertly viewed as an affirmative good). If having more out-of-wedlock children puts a strain on a single mother’s welfare check and food stamps, then the government should increase the allotment to reflect the additional births. If that single mother and her children show up at a shelter claiming homelessness, give them an apartment. If such free housing encourages more single mothers to flood the shelter system, contract for more apartments.
Strangely, after Trump issued his recent executive order, a few media voices tentatively raised the problem of the unintended consequences of purportedly humane rules. CNN anchor John Berman asked Schiff on Thursday morning if exempting illegal aliens with children from detention “incentivized” such illegal crossings. Schiff ducked the query: “Well, it’s not a simple question as whether somebody has a child or not.” But the problem of perverse incentives will not go away. America’s loss of sovereignty over its borders and the incursion of millions of barely literate campesinos and their progeny is the result of years of victim-favoring policies that ignore personal agency and court the consequences.
In restating the obvious the column contributes to our ability to see clearly what is in front of our nose.